Judge blocks Alabama illegal immigration law

posted at 6:47 pm on August 29, 2011 by Tina Korbe

So far, every state law aimed to crack down on illegal immigration has been stymied in court — and a judge’s ruling today ensured a law passed in Alabama earlier this year is no exception to that. The Washington Timesreports:

A federal district judge halted Alabama’s new immigration law Monday just days before it was to take effect, making it the latest state to see a crackdown law blocked by a court.

Chief District Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn said she didn’t have enough time to consider the law in full before the Sept. 1 date it goes into effect, so she halted its enforcement until she has time to make a broader ruling later next month.

“In entering this order the court specifically notes that it is in no way addressing the merits of the motions,” Judge Blackburn wrote in her brief order, promising a ruling by Sept. 28.

Given the federal government’s seeming unwillingness to take up the issue of immigration reform or even to take first preliminary steps to further secure the border, the state-led attempt to ascertain immigrant status and to appropriately penalize immigrants in the country illegally is certainly understandable. Given that four of the five state laws blocked by federal judges does no more than grant local police the authority to enforce federal law, the court decisions are especially perplexing. But Judge Blackburn might have more of a leg to stand on. The Alabama law went further than any other law — it required schools to determine the legal status of students, for example — so perhaps Blackburn was sincere when she said she simply didn’t have time to consider the law completely. So, stay tuned to her decision Sept. 28.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Lawyers for the Obama administration and other groups asked a federal judge on Wednesday to temporarily block Alabama’s immigration law, widely seen as the toughest state measure on illegal immigration in the country.

Given that four of the five state laws blocked by federal judges does no more than grant local police the authority to enforce federal law, the court decisions are especially perplexing.

No Tina the decisions are not perplexing. Lets call it what it is—effing BS. The feds won’t do a thing, Obama just took approx. 300k illegals out of the deportation pipeline, and both parties let this problem simmer.
We had an amnesty in 1986 that was supposed to fix this problem. I didn’t like it but figured it was reasonable given the situation. Four presidents later the problem is worse than ever.

you’re a lawyer or law student, the Obama campaign needs your help. We’re dispatching volunteer lawyers across the country as part of the Obama Voter Protection Program.

This unprecedented program will make sure we have volunteer attorneys as voter protection monitors in battleground states across the country. We’ve got hundreds of thousands of first-time voters participating in the election this year, and they’re going to need your help in making sure their ballots get counted.

“The law prohibits almost everything which would harbor or shield an undocumented immigrant or encourage an undocumented immigrant to live in Alabama. This new Alabama law makes it illegal for a Catholic to priest baptize, hear the confession of, celebrate the anointing of the sick with, or preach the word of God to, an undocumented immigrant. When it involves undocumented immigrants, it is illegal to encourage them to attend Mass or give them a ride to Mass. It is illegal to allow them to attend adult scripture study groups, or attend CCD or Sunday school classes. It is illegal for the clergy to counsel them in times of difficulty or in preparation for marriage. It is illegal for them to come to Alcoholic Anonymous meetings or other recovery groups at our churches. The law prohibits almost every activity of our Catholic Social Services. If it involves an undocumented immigrant, it is illegal to give the disabled person a ride to the doctor; give food or clothing or financial assistance in an emergency; allow them to shop at our thrift stores or to learn English; it is illegal to counsel a mother who has a problem pregnancy, or to help her with baby food or diapers thus making it far more likely that she will choose abortion. This law attacks our very understanding of what it means to be a Christian.” –Most Reverend Robert J. Baker, S.T.D., Bishop of Birmingham in Alabama

This weekend I spoke to a local candidate who is running for office in the 2011 election in my very liberal city.

I asked him if he was elected to office would he enforce the Federal Secure Communities Act which would require him to send finger prints of people who were arrested to ICE to screen for ILLEGAL aliens.

His answer was basically, no because he would follow the “policy that the community wants” which in this case is to be a sanctuary city for ILLEGALs. (Alas, he is the most conservative of the candidates who are running for this office.)

If we want to stop ILLEGAL immigration, we need to make it very clear to every candidate at the Local, State and Federal level that we, the “members of the community”, want our laws against ILLEGAL immigration to be enforced.

“In entering this order the court specifically notes that it is in no way addressing the merits of the motions,” Judge Blackburn wrote in her brief order, promising a ruling by Sept. 28.

Is there ANYONE reading this blog that thinks this judge has NOT already made up her mind?

As typical with many judges these days, her goal is to ENFORCE HER DECISION for as long as she can before it is appealed to the next court. This judge is circumventing the legal process by extending her period of study beyond the most effective moment of implementation, the start of the school year. Her decision on the date is not accidental.

In the same manner as the judge in Wisconsin, this judge will sit on this case for as long as she can. In Wisconsin, that judge helped to funnel tens of millions of dollars into the crooked labor union healthcare scam. I wonder how much this judge is going to cost the people of Alabama?

What nonsense. Illegal alien kids would not be “persecuted” just because someone asks them where they were born when they enroll in school. Providing a public school education for illegal aliens costs states billions of tax dollars every year. Taxpayers forced to incur this burden have every right to know how many illegal aliens are being educated in their schools. Liberals prefer to keep the numbers secret, for all the obvious reasons.

Obama appeals the rulings against Obamacare that have already been handed down and gets a stay pending the appeal. I suppose proponents of this law could appeal a delay until the end of September, but that would get decided later than that date anyway. Probably not worth the effort.

This law attacks our very understanding of what it means to be a Christian thief and illegal invader engaged in stealing goods and services from American taxpayers.”

RBMN on August 29, 2011 at 7:29 PM

(Corrected obvious error, and referring Most Reverend Robert J. Baker, S.T.D., Bishop of Birmingham in Alabama to “Remedial 10 Commandments” school to correct glaring deficiency in understanding of “Thou Shalt Not Steal”)

Don’t get me started on Bishop Baker. I’ve met Bishop Baker at my son’s confirmation last spring. This confirmation was held by our Catholic church at their spanish mass even though the vast majority of our Catholic community speaks english. However, it is the spanish kids (who cannot speak english) that the church is catering to because there happen to be a lot of them, and they are Catholic. The kids who spoke English got very little out of their own Confirmation mass because they couldn’t understand hardly any of it. Why it was held at a spanish mass is so the good bishop could pander to the hispanic community to help fill the pews that the whites are leaving.

I truly loathe Bishop Baker. His whole lawsuit against the State of Alabama is bogus on its face, and the fact that he is encouraging the Catholic congregations in our state to get involved in fighting this issue with him really makes me angry.

As far as requiring school officials to determine immigration status, that is only partially true:

Section 28(a)(1) requires every public elementary and secondary school, at the time of enrollment, to determine whether the student enrolling in public school “was born outside of the jurisdiction of the United States or is the child of an alien not lawfully present in the United States and qualifies for assignment to an English as Second Language Class or other remedial program.” Section 28(a)(2) requires that determination to be made by relying on the student’s original or certified copy of a birth certificate. Under Section 28(a)(3), if from that review, it is determined that the is student born outside of US is child of illegal alien or if a birth certificate is unavailable available, then the parent, guardian or custodian must notify the school within 30 days of the student’s actual citizenship or immigration status. Section 28(a)(a)(5) requires a school to presume that a student is an illegal alien if no documents or declarations are made. Section 28(c) then requires the school to give the data to the State Board of Education which then compiles the info, “aggregated by public school, regarding the numbers of…citizens, lawfully present aliens…, and of [illegal] aliens…” Basically what the law requires is for the State Board of Education to report the numbers of illegal aliens to the Legislature in the aggregate by schools so that the Legislature can plan for planning future school budgets. In other words, to statement that HB 56 requires determining immigration status of students is misleading.

Also, the characterization ignores Section 7(e) which specifically states that “Verification of lawful presence…shall not be required for…primary or secondary school education…”